The Overdominance of Computers
Implications for my practice: Ashley Gwinn Springboard into life savoring its capers.
Lowell Monke believes that schools need to prepare students for the high-tech society beyond the school walls, but does not tack this belief to the assertion that preparation warrants early precipitation. Monke holds that students should prepare by strengthening their inner resources. This article asserts that children need to learn how to use current technologies but that they need to be constantly exposed to genuine experiences in the “real” world. Monke believes that children should be able to stand back from the mainstream suction of technology and to see the world through pure eyes not hindered from hours of screen viewing. Aligning with the principles that the Alliance for Childhood holds, Monke considers experiences important to the development of children to be devoid of technology interaction. He asserts that it is only after children have had time to engage in direct experiences that they are able to gradually be introduced to computers. It is only in the high school years that Monke deems technology a place worthy of prominence.
If I was a teacher modeling my classroom off of Monke’s principles then I would be teaching in the “just in time” portion of students’ lives. Being engaged in this section of learning I would help students to become functionally literate with technology. In my classroom this would consist of creating podcasts, interactive power points, wordles, commercials, Windows media player movies, Go animates!, etc. These technologies would be used in the classroom to expand the knowledge students have of the technology and the content.
While reading Monke’s article, I kept referencing back to an article I had to read for ED 370 which discussed similar ideas. The ED 370 article discussed the difference among various nations in regards to technology usage and I found China’s strategy extremely interesting. In China, when young students are learning about technology, they are actually not utilizing technological devices at all. Instead, the focus is on teaching students how to be responsible and respectful users of the internet. Teachers go in to great detail about netiquette and appropriate rules and behaviors for internet usage. At first, I found it extremely bizarre seeing as how the students really hadn’t had much experience with the technology they were talking about. However, reading this article and reflecting on the ED 370 piece, it makes sense that students learn specific moral lessons first before engaging in these experiences online. From personal experience, I can see the younger generation’s different approach to communicating than ours; and, the differences are even more prominent between present day students and people my parent’s age. My students seem to lack understanding that what they say online can have serious effects. I believe Monke is correct in his assertion that today’s students have a great deal of power with regards to technological ability but have no preparation with how to use it.
Additionally, I agreed with Monke’s approach to introducing students to technology. I like the idea of having students learn the ethics of technology usage when they are younger and progressively learning more about technology as they continue their education. I especially agreed with Monke’s belief that the last two years of high school would have a stronger emphasis on using technology in order to be prepared for their future endeavors. Technology changes so fast that it would be beneficial for students to learn when and how to use technology that will be applicable and relevant when pursuing their desired careers. As a future teacher of high school students, I would appreciate this model of technology usage because it would narrow the instruction I would have to have in order to successfully prepare my students. I would be able to focus my instruction of technology on devices or services that will be helpful even a couple years later.
--K.McCollum
Monke’s article focuses on the overuse of technology in early education. He believes that students need to be taught the ethics of human interaction before they can effectively use technology.
In a real life situation, Monke’s ideas would look like this: Students learn morality and ethical ways to interact with other people in their K-8 school years. Then when they reach high school, technology will be thrust upon them “just in time” for them to absorb the information they need to learn different technological skills. This would lead to a minimal overload of technology on students who are not ready to learn and would give students a chance to learn what they morally should and should not do in an online setting.
With that said, I felt that the ideas presented in this article were limiting to the students’ potential. Monke seemed to miss the concept that teachers don’t actually teach their students how to use the majority of technology they encounter. Instead, students are taught things like “point, click, save” on Microsoft Word and typing skills. Students are exposed to technology everywhere, so eliminating technology in school would not prevent students from potentially hacking into other people’s accounts or cyber bullying, as Monke suggests. To me, learning how to use programs like Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and skills like typing and how to use a scanner is like learning a foreign language; there’s a certain window of time in which students are most susceptible to receiving that information, and the older one gets, the harder it is to learn and keep those skills. Additionally, unless Monke is suggesting cramming parts of the high school curriculum into middle school classrooms, I do not see how teaching students everything they need to know about technology in students’ last four years of school will be possible. With an overabundance of information to teach and limited time to teach it, adding information that students could have easily learned little by little over time seems about as effective as cramming before a huge test: students feel overwhelmed and leave the test with no memory of what they just studied.
- Kristy McPherson
This article’s main concern is how students need to learn moral judgment in the natural world before entering the cyber world. Though I see how someone who is, to reference Marc Prensky, a “digital immigrant” might feel this way, the truth of today’s society is that the digital world is quickly becoming a part of the natural world of our students. Most students today already know about the digital world before they enter their first classroom. They may not be on the social networking sites yet but their older siblings, parents and character from shows are already exposing them to what the internet can provide for them. Schools do have the responsibility to teach students how to function in society and technology ethics are now required curriculum for schools to complete their students’ education. Does this mean we should have kindergarteners or first graders let loose on the internet? No, I do not believe that throwing students in to the digital world without guidance is the best idea. However, as students develop their technology skills schools should adapt their curriculum to cover the appropriate technology. It is true we do not have fourth graders driving cars years before they could get behind the wheel, but the fourth grader is exposed to the road in the form of adults driving them places. A second grader can tell you that when the light is red the car needs to stop. This type of exposure to the rules of the road could be the same way technology is used in young students’ classrooms.
-Katie Reilly
Lowell Monke stresses the point that computers are a hindrance when they are used before young learners are ready. It is my opinion, that like everything else in the educational world, teachers need to apply the technique of scaffolding when incorporating technology into the classroom. Although children today are very skilled using technology, often more skilled then adults, they are not taught how to properly use these resources in the classroom. Technology in the social world and technology in the academic world are two very different things. They may be intermingled (and necessarily so), but not without our proper training first. Some experts say that children growing up with technology are experts, but they are experts at spreading gossip via Facebook, procrastinating via stumbleupon, and relying on quick information via Wikipedia. They are not yet experts on using technology to prepare them to live in a world that is comprised of human-to-human interaction. We must scaffold our children’s use of technology so they properly learn how to put their technological brilliance to good use.
Instead of spending all of our academic resources on buying new technology and training teachers how to use them, we should focus more of our energy and resources on hands on experiences. We should be taking more field trips, building stronger relationships with our community partners and showing our young students compassion. Giving young students more access to technology before they are ready to use it gives them more exposure to relationships that are not real and not necessarily healthy. Children need to be children -- exposing children to technology at an age that’s too young has the capability of stealing away their childhood innocence.
Technology in the classroom also brings with it the possibility of cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is a huge problem in today’s schools and is nearly impossible to control. Students should not be allowed to use technology until they learn about the harm cyber bullying can inflict on someone. Elementary and middle school should focus on techniques on how to put educational technology to good use. Too often this step is skipped and results in the ineffective use of such a powerful tool.
-Kelsey Curlett
Monke’s assertion that technology should not play a prominent role in a child’s education until high school is just absurd. While I respect his concern that children will not develop skills for the real world if they are too heavily focused on technology, I believe that technology will be part of their lives whether it is at school or not. I think that ensuring that students’ experiences with technology at school are purposeful and engaging is enough to prevent any serious implications of a distracted student online. I also think it is very important to teach students the difference between the cyber world and the real world and to prepare children with the skills, procedures, and etiquette to survive in both. Life is no longer lived solely in the real world, not even for a young child. If a young child sits in front of a small screen each night at home, don’t we have a responsibility to teach that child how to properly and safely use that small screen? The responsibility for raising a healthy technological native will ultimately fall on parents, which as educators, we know always works out perfectly.
-Aaron Noordhoek
47
What I take away from this article is that computers cannot replace the benefits of a great classroom environment. There is a growing number of schools who are embracing the notion of on-line education and I see that students (for a multitude of reasons) do not thrive with simply a computer substitution. However, this does not mean we condone the use of computers because they have their purposes and they can be helpful methods to instruct students.
So in my class, technology should primarily be used by the teacher to help give students different ways of learning about a topic. The students will use computers now and again to write blogs or podcasts but it’s important not to stray completely away from the pen and paper!
-Derek Boillat
Technology and the Culture of Learning
Implications for Practice: Ashley Gwinn
Schools generally put faith in the promise of technology but not their money and time. Paul Gow argues that technology penetrates the protective utopian bubble that a school would ideally provide for its students despite the prominent use of firewall and AUPs. In this article Gow attacks online grade and assignment books being made available to parents with the presumption that this availability detracts from the independence students are supposed to be gaining in their air tight bubble schools. Technology, Gow states, has also allowed students to experiment in moratorium with their identities, but comments that this too is an issue as students can mask their identities and balk empathy and responsibility. Gow recognizes a benefit of technology as he sees technology taking over the mundane and freeing students and teachers up to become more than was ever possible. Communication and planning in classrooms is made easier with the use of technology. Gow’s use of innovative technology on the road to hell; however, is only allowed to be walked by teachers who have trudged through hand written essays and slide rules. Students are often required to learn a base knowledge of these fundamental tasks, but this base knowledge is not taken farther as current technology usurps the functionality of performing these tasks by hand. Gow’s final point is that technology is unpredictable and does not check in with schools before altering their culture.
If I was a teacher modeling my classroom off of Gow’s ideas I would wrap up my students in the giant bubble bubble wrap and let them find their own way down an educational lane padded safely with plush guiding bumpers.
Gow discusses the multiple-faceted impact that technology, specifically, has had on school environments. He lists all the ingenious ways in which technological has helped us become more efficient, but worries at what cost? Perhaps, most importantly, what is next for educational technology? Although it is hard to deny the myriad of benefits that technology offers students and teachers, I can’t help but wonder if it is too much. I think that as educators it is our responsibility to comprehensively assess the technology we choose to use in our classrooms. As a future teacher, I intend on evaluating the technology I use in my class to determine if it is truly improving or facilitating student learning. I feel that there are numerous instances when technological devices are being used to teach or explain a subject and it could be done in another, less distracting way. For example, my CT lets students use their mini computers to type up almost everything they write. When I walk around the room, I see students with other webpages open, looking at their grades or trying to finish other assignments. They cannot stay focused on one task! Most will finish the assignment for English class, but the work is usually of poor quality. The level of writing they produce for 8th grade students is not impressive; in fact, it’s scary and I wonder constantly if it is because of their technological dependence and distractions. If you ask them to write something out without a computer, they freak out. They don’t know where to begin and can’t come up with any ideas; they struggle at thinking. These experiences have taught me that I need to be critical of how I incorporate and evaluate the appropriateness of technology in my curriculum.
--K.McCollum
Gow argues that because technology cannot be controlled, it undermines the protective “bubble” that schools work so hard to establish. He comments that the intangible costs of technology in this sense may outweigh the benefits of using technology in the classroom.
In a real life situation, Gow’s ideas would mean limiting the amount of access students have to technology in the classroom in order for a school to control what its students can and cannot see online. This would preserve the “bubble” idea that many schools try to focus on. A teacher under these circumstances would also have to be incredibly vigilant in what his/her students had access to when they did come in contact with computers. As many educators have already discovered, there are ways to get around firewalls to access things that some may deem inappropriate for school-aged children.
- Kristy McPherson
Paul Gow expresses the idea that technology is negatively influencing how many tasks students are trying to complete in a single day. It is true that the multi-tasking can be an issue because of the efficiency of technology today but educators need to recognize and face this consequence in education. This type of thinking is going to happen even if technology is not used in schools. Teachers need to take this knowledge and apply the lesson to their classrooms. Students should be made aware of how multi-tasking through their homework could potentially earn them a lower grade. With our high pace society, it is the teacher’s job to help students become efficient in their tasks while not losing the quality of the work. It is a skill that is not only hard to master but one that has been an issue long before technology became a dominant player in education. Though technology has made it more apparent, I refuse to believe that multi-tasking is a “new” development in students.
-Katie Reilly
As a teacher, I have found technology to be very useful and beneficial to keep my classroom and my student’s data organized. I can quickly put together a spreadsheet of test scores to analyze or I can send an e-mail home to parents in seconds. However, not all teachers have caught on to the technology bandwagon and cannot use technology in such a beneficial way. If I were a principal and hiring prospective teachers, I would require that they could use such technological tools to assist them with their teaching and data records. In today’s educational world, teachers are being held accountable for their student’s learning; therefore, they should be able to document their students learning using a computer program.
Working with a teacher that is not technologically savvy has been a frustrating experience. She does not know how to save a document to her computer but has no problem shopping online during class. I find this experience to be parallel to student technology use. Students can use technology for pleasure but have a hard time using it to focus on educational content.
-Kelsey Curlett
My CT keeps his iphone on him at all times with the ringer on. When parents send him an e-mail (he usually gets about 5 a day) he has about 15 to 20 minutes to respond before they send another or call. I think that everyone is becoming so expectant of instant communication and instant gratification that they are impatient to wait for anything. While I look forward to communicating to parents and carefully placing technology within the classroom, I think it is important for the entire school to have reasonable expectations of teachers, students, and parents. Gow is likely correct that technology is having unforeseen adverse effects on student learning and accomplishment. It is important for teachers to know their students and to know what their students are doing when they are on a computer. My CT recently received a Kindle Fire for his classroom, students rotate which days they get to use the new piece of technology. It has been preloaded with games and various educational applications. Students really haven’t been given specifics on what it is for, so many think it is acceptable to play games through the lessons. Your turn to use the Kindle Day has become your day to not focus and play games, I am curious to see how this goes.
-Aaron Noordhoek
48
Premise 1
It’s scary to think that a student can receive a bad grade and the teacher can be receiving a phone call from the parent within 5 minutes. I think that fact breaks down the community that schools set up in which there is a transaction between teacher and student outside of the parents (which seems contradictory since our emphasis is on getting the parent involved). But this method is not healthy for any involved. I will strongly urge students to keep that relationship secure and allow for the parents to stay within their realm.
Premise 2
The first thing that popped into my head while reading this was Bartleby, the Scrivener by Herman Melville in which the characters are basically just real life copiers. By removing these tasks, it is true that we can get more accomplished. However, as a teacher I want to keep students grounded. For example, one essay that they turn in is not done via computer. They must actually edit and spell check themselves. Another possibility is to designate library time for actual encyclopedia research days instead of just Google. This keeps students appreciative and also shows other ways to accomplish goals.
Premise 3
What I take out of this is that teacher needs to keep up with the current technology. As everything seems outdated within a few years, what was good for one school year may be ancient news in three. We need to keep updating out curriculum and learning to master these new technologies. (In other news, that Japanese School-girl Watch video is WEIRD!)
-Derek Boillat
Listen to the Natives
Implications for Practice: Ashley Gwinn Beat the game, pass the course.
Finally! Marc Prensky advocates for teachers that, “laugh at their own digital immigrant accents, pay attention to how their students learn, and value and honor what their students know” (307). Teachers should allow students to display and use their technological expertise in the classroom as a talent and to connect school to life. Prensky advocates for the use of technology to help to intrinsically motivate students to explore their content and fervently pursue their own learning. Prensky believes that students should be included in the decision making of the classroom and the school. Students have a vast store of knowledge that needs to be honored and valued instead of chastised. Instruction and classroom organization needs to be flexible to the meandering paths students diverge upon. Prensky brings up a pertinent point when he says that students should be allowed the choice to “vote with their attention” when educators fail to deliver compelling content. Students are customers whose voices need to be heard. Prensky advocates for a focus to be placed on the future curriculum.
As a teacher my classroom would more model one that would make Prensky proud. I am a huge advocate for the use and manipulation of technology in the classroom. In my future classroom I will work to engage students with the inclusion of these technologies while recognizing that I do not have to master each one. Also, I want my students to have a voice in curriculum direction, assessments, classroom management, and class structure. They are the people who will be the main participants in these components and I will honor and value their inputs. Successful bosses consult their employees by finding out their needs and working with them toward a common goal. I want to be a successful teacher of successful students and including the students in decision making processes is vital to that success.
I found myself cringing while reading Prensky’s article; it was hard to imagine video games being a sole source of learning. The article suggests today’s generation, digital natives, should be taught only though technology. He also believes that teachers should be selected for their “empathy and guidance abilities rather than exclusively for their subject-matter content” (307). I completely disagree with this statement; referring back to Darling-Hammond’s article, in order for teachers to be quality educators they need to be knowledgeable about their subject. An informed teacher will be better suited to come up with various ways to explain an idea or concept because they have vast knowledge about that subject.
Although I think technological devices are capable of being able to facilitate learning, they are not able to do the same things a teacher can do. If a teacher can be replaced by a computer, than they aren’t doing their job. Teachers can critically think and change teaching strategies for each student; they have the ability to recognize confusion and adapt their presentation of the material. Teachers have the ability to connect information to other ideas and add their own personal experiences. They can use the information they have gathered through their personal relationships with students and bring it in to their lectures. --K.McCollum
Prensky’s article advocates for the use of technology in the classroom to appeal to the digital natives that now act as students. He promotes teachers using more than just their content knowledge to work with students, and asks them to focus also on empathy and guidance strategies (i.e., the two other qualities it takes to be a good teacher who can effectively connect with his/her students) to maximize their effectiveness with students. Prensky’s model integrates modern technology – which the students already use to learn, whether they realize it or not – to more efficiently teach today’s students.
Prensky’s model would be very easy to integrate into a classroom. It essentially utilizes materials that the students are already familiar with to help them learn. My classroom would utilize both modern technology and traditional teaching methods to appeal to all types of learners. I would be empathetic to my students to help create a more comfortable, safe atmosphere for learning and would work to guide my students through their educational journey rather than just presenting information.
- Kristy McPherson
Marc Prensky has the right idea about technology and students. With its fast evolving rate, teachers will never grow up with the same technology their students are using on a daily basis outside of their classroom. Because of this gap between the “native” and the “immigrant” it is important for teachers to listen to their students. Teachers know they need to constantly be updating their education to stay relevant in their field, taking a technology class every few years should be another requirement on that list. Some teachers embrace new technology at home but do not feel comfortable with using it in the classroom because the students will be the experts. No amount of studying will make the “accent” of the “digital immigrant” disappear and this trait scares teachers in thinking they cannot have control in their classroom with technology. As teachers we should be celebrating our students’ knowledge on the subject not giving the message that it is unvalued knowledge by expelling it from the classroom. If we, as teachers, show our students our weakness in technology, our students will be more willing to take a risk in our classrooms with the information they have a weakness. It is one of those life lessons that sometimes lost in education, the value of making mistakes.
-Katie Reilly
It was hard to read this article by Marc Prensky without wearing the doubting lens. First of all, Prensky says, “we will never master [technology] with the same level of skill” (308). But I am curious when he says ‘we’ who is he referring to? Reading this article as a 22-year old, soon-to-be educator, I have grown up (like my students) with technology at my fingertips. I feel that I have similar technological skills as my students, if not more so, especially because many of my students don’t have access to technology at their homes. I also do not believe that cell phones should be used as a learning tool. If I were a principal, I would have a no cell phone policy. Even teachers at professional development meetings do not know when it is inappropriate to use cell phones. I have yet to catch a student using his or her phone for educational purposes. Again, like using computers, if students were to use their phone as an educational tool, they would need to be taught how to do so. Students use their cell phones to chat with friends when they’re bored in class, not to download class related material.
Prensky also says in his article that students should be able to choose their own learning partners rather than having teachers assign them. Teachers have reasons for assigning students to groups and while I believe giving students choices is very beneficial to the learning process, I do not believe that student picked groups are always conducive to learning. There will always be students that will not be able to focus if they work with the wrong people and young students are not yet mature enough to decide if they have picked a partner that will be valuable.
I do not disagree that we should cater to our 21st century technological students but I also do not believe that technology should run the classroom. Students need to be able to use technology but at the same time, they need to learn how to interact with people first.
-Kelsey Curlett
I remember helping my 5th grade teacher set up his first e-mail account. I remember feeling that my teacher respected me enough to ask me for help and it was a lot of fun teaching something new to a teacher. I think that as teachers we are afraid to ask for help from our students out of embarrassment, fear, or even arrogance. This coming generation of students are natives in the digital world, their experiences and knowledge will be far beyond our own when it comes to technology. It is important to get their input and feedback. Let us find ways to help them develop their skills and at the same time learn something new.
-Aaron Noordhoek
49
I think it was Aaron and I who were discussing (correct me if I’m wrong) the fact that we are not the technology generation. The new students are the ones who do not know school or life without technology, cell phones, and graphing calculators. But what a great article. This encourages students to get their voices heard. I think that students will have a better relationship with the teacher if the educator is openly asking what works, what doesn’t, and what they’d like to see in the future. Students would then become part of the learning and teaching process. And coming from my placement, I have no problem asking my students for help. Sure sometimes they giggle, but when they know that I am just trying to learn some new Spanish words so that I can better assist them they get very serious and listen carefully to make sure that I say it correctly back to them. The same can apply for technology. Admit when you don’t, ask for student’s opinions, ask for their help. We’ll be better teachers for it.
The Overdominance of Computers
Implications for my practice: Ashley Gwinn
Springboard into life savoring its capers.
Lowell Monke believes that schools need to prepare students for the high-tech society beyond the school walls, but does not tack this belief to the assertion that preparation warrants early precipitation. Monke holds that students should prepare by strengthening their inner resources. This article asserts that children need to learn how to use current technologies but that they need to be constantly exposed to genuine experiences in the “real” world. Monke believes that children should be able to stand back from the mainstream suction of technology and to see the world through pure eyes not hindered from hours of screen viewing. Aligning with the principles that the Alliance for Childhood holds, Monke considers experiences important to the development of children to be devoid of technology interaction. He asserts that it is only after children have had time to engage in direct experiences that they are able to gradually be introduced to computers. It is only in the high school years that Monke deems technology a place worthy of prominence.
If I was a teacher modeling my classroom off of Monke’s principles then I would be teaching in the “just in time” portion of students’ lives. Being engaged in this section of learning I would help students to become functionally literate with technology. In my classroom this would consist of creating podcasts, interactive power points, wordles, commercials, Windows media player movies, Go animates!, etc. These technologies would be used in the classroom to expand the knowledge students have of the technology and the content.
While reading Monke’s article, I kept referencing back to an article I had to read for ED 370 which discussed similar ideas. The ED 370 article discussed the difference among various nations in regards to technology usage and I found China’s strategy extremely interesting. In China, when young students are learning about technology, they are actually not utilizing technological devices at all. Instead, the focus is on teaching students how to be responsible and respectful users of the internet. Teachers go in to great detail about netiquette and appropriate rules and behaviors for internet usage. At first, I found it extremely bizarre seeing as how the students really hadn’t had much experience with the technology they were talking about. However, reading this article and reflecting on the ED 370 piece, it makes sense that students learn specific moral lessons first before engaging in these experiences online. From personal experience, I can see the younger generation’s different approach to communicating than ours; and, the differences are even more prominent between present day students and people my parent’s age. My students seem to lack understanding that what they say online can have serious effects. I believe Monke is correct in his assertion that today’s students have a great deal of power with regards to technological ability but have no preparation with how to use it.
Additionally, I agreed with Monke’s approach to introducing students to technology. I like the idea of having students learn the ethics of technology usage when they are younger and progressively learning more about technology as they continue their education. I especially agreed with Monke’s belief that the last two years of high school would have a stronger emphasis on using technology in order to be prepared for their future endeavors. Technology changes so fast that it would be beneficial for students to learn when and how to use technology that will be applicable and relevant when pursuing their desired careers. As a future teacher of high school students, I would appreciate this model of technology usage because it would narrow the instruction I would have to have in order to successfully prepare my students. I would be able to focus my instruction of technology on devices or services that will be helpful even a couple years later.
--K.McCollum
Monke’s article focuses on the overuse of technology in early education. He believes that students need to be taught the ethics of human interaction before they can effectively use technology.
In a real life situation, Monke’s ideas would look like this: Students learn morality and ethical ways to interact with other people in their K-8 school years. Then when they reach high school, technology will be thrust upon them “just in time” for them to absorb the information they need to learn different technological skills. This would lead to a minimal overload of technology on students who are not ready to learn and would give students a chance to learn what they morally should and should not do in an online setting.
With that said, I felt that the ideas presented in this article were limiting to the students’ potential. Monke seemed to miss the concept that teachers don’t actually teach their students how to use the majority of technology they encounter. Instead, students are taught things like “point, click, save” on Microsoft Word and typing skills. Students are exposed to technology everywhere, so eliminating technology in school would not prevent students from potentially hacking into other people’s accounts or cyber bullying, as Monke suggests. To me, learning how to use programs like Microsoft Word and PowerPoint and skills like typing and how to use a scanner is like learning a foreign language; there’s a certain window of time in which students are most susceptible to receiving that information, and the older one gets, the harder it is to learn and keep those skills. Additionally, unless Monke is suggesting cramming parts of the high school curriculum into middle school classrooms, I do not see how teaching students everything they need to know about technology in students’ last four years of school will be possible. With an overabundance of information to teach and limited time to teach it, adding information that students could have easily learned little by little over time seems about as effective as cramming before a huge test: students feel overwhelmed and leave the test with no memory of what they just studied.
- Kristy McPherson
This article’s main concern is how students need to learn moral judgment in the natural world before entering the cyber world. Though I see how someone who is, to reference Marc Prensky, a “digital immigrant” might feel this way, the truth of today’s society is that the digital world is quickly becoming a part of the natural world of our students. Most students today already know about the digital world before they enter their first classroom. They may not be on the social networking sites yet but their older siblings, parents and character from shows are already exposing them to what the internet can provide for them. Schools do have the responsibility to teach students how to function in society and technology ethics are now required curriculum for schools to complete their students’ education. Does this mean we should have kindergarteners or first graders let loose on the internet? No, I do not believe that throwing students in to the digital world without guidance is the best idea. However, as students develop their technology skills schools should adapt their curriculum to cover the appropriate technology. It is true we do not have fourth graders driving cars years before they could get behind the wheel, but the fourth grader is exposed to the road in the form of adults driving them places. A second grader can tell you that when the light is red the car needs to stop. This type of exposure to the rules of the road could be the same way technology is used in young students’ classrooms.
-Katie Reilly
Lowell Monke stresses the point that computers are a hindrance when they are used before young learners are ready. It is my opinion, that like everything else in the educational world, teachers need to apply the technique of scaffolding when incorporating technology into the classroom. Although children today are very skilled using technology, often more skilled then adults, they are not taught how to properly use these resources in the classroom. Technology in the social world and technology in the academic world are two very different things. They may be intermingled (and necessarily so), but not without our proper training first. Some experts say that children growing up with technology are experts, but they are experts at spreading gossip via Facebook, procrastinating via stumbleupon, and relying on quick information via Wikipedia. They are not yet experts on using technology to prepare them to live in a world that is comprised of human-to-human interaction. We must scaffold our children’s use of technology so they properly learn how to put their technological brilliance to good use.
Instead of spending all of our academic resources on buying new technology and training teachers how to use them, we should focus more of our energy and resources on hands on experiences. We should be taking more field trips, building stronger relationships with our community partners and showing our young students compassion. Giving young students more access to technology before they are ready to use it gives them more exposure to relationships that are not real and not necessarily healthy. Children need to be children -- exposing children to technology at an age that’s too young has the capability of stealing away their childhood innocence.
Technology in the classroom also brings with it the possibility of cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is a huge problem in today’s schools and is nearly impossible to control. Students should not be allowed to use technology until they learn about the harm cyber bullying can inflict on someone. Elementary and middle school should focus on techniques on how to put educational technology to good use. Too often this step is skipped and results in the ineffective use of such a powerful tool.
-Kelsey Curlett
Monke’s assertion that technology should not play a prominent role in a child’s education until high school is just absurd. While I respect his concern that children will not develop skills for the real world if they are too heavily focused on technology, I believe that technology will be part of their lives whether it is at school or not. I think that ensuring that students’ experiences with technology at school are purposeful and engaging is enough to prevent any serious implications of a distracted student online. I also think it is very important to teach students the difference between the cyber world and the real world and to prepare children with the skills, procedures, and etiquette to survive in both. Life is no longer lived solely in the real world, not even for a young child. If a young child sits in front of a small screen each night at home, don’t we have a responsibility to teach that child how to properly and safely use that small screen? The responsibility for raising a healthy technological native will ultimately fall on parents, which as educators, we know always works out perfectly.
-Aaron Noordhoek
47
What I take away from this article is that computers cannot replace the benefits of a great classroom environment. There is a growing number of schools who are embracing the notion of on-line education and I see that students (for a multitude of reasons) do not thrive with simply a computer substitution. However, this does not mean we condone the use of computers because they have their purposes and they can be helpful methods to instruct students.
So in my class, technology should primarily be used by the teacher to help give students different ways of learning about a topic. The students will use computers now and again to write blogs or podcasts but it’s important not to stray completely away from the pen and paper!
-Derek Boillat
Technology and the Culture of Learning
Implications for Practice: Ashley Gwinn
Schools generally put faith in the promise of technology but not their money and time. Paul Gow argues that technology penetrates the protective utopian bubble that a school would ideally provide for its students despite the prominent use of firewall and AUPs. In this article Gow attacks online grade and assignment books being made available to parents with the presumption that this availability detracts from the independence students are supposed to be gaining in their air tight bubble schools. Technology, Gow states, has also allowed students to experiment in moratorium with their identities, but comments that this too is an issue as students can mask their identities and balk empathy and responsibility. Gow recognizes a benefit of technology as he sees technology taking over the mundane and freeing students and teachers up to become more than was ever possible. Communication and planning in classrooms is made easier with the use of technology. Gow’s use of innovative technology on the road to hell; however, is only allowed to be walked by teachers who have trudged through hand written essays and slide rules. Students are often required to learn a base knowledge of these fundamental tasks, but this base knowledge is not taken farther as current technology usurps the functionality of performing these tasks by hand. Gow’s final point is that technology is unpredictable and does not check in with schools before altering their culture.
If I was a teacher modeling my classroom off of Gow’s ideas I would wrap up my students in the giant bubble bubble wrap and let them find their own way down an educational lane padded safely with plush guiding bumpers.
Gow discusses the multiple-faceted impact that technology, specifically, has had on school environments. He lists all the ingenious ways in which technological has helped us become more efficient, but worries at what cost? Perhaps, most importantly, what is next for educational technology? Although it is hard to deny the myriad of benefits that technology offers students and teachers, I can’t help but wonder if it is too much. I think that as educators it is our responsibility to comprehensively assess the technology we choose to use in our classrooms. As a future teacher, I intend on evaluating the technology I use in my class to determine if it is truly improving or facilitating student learning. I feel that there are numerous instances when technological devices are being used to teach or explain a subject and it could be done in another, less distracting way. For example, my CT lets students use their mini computers to type up almost everything they write. When I walk around the room, I see students with other webpages open, looking at their grades or trying to finish other assignments. They cannot stay focused on one task! Most will finish the assignment for English class, but the work is usually of poor quality. The level of writing they produce for 8th grade students is not impressive; in fact, it’s scary and I wonder constantly if it is because of their technological dependence and distractions. If you ask them to write something out without a computer, they freak out. They don’t know where to begin and can’t come up with any ideas; they struggle at thinking. These experiences have taught me that I need to be critical of how I incorporate and evaluate the appropriateness of technology in my curriculum.
--K.McCollum
Gow argues that because technology cannot be controlled, it undermines the protective “bubble” that schools work so hard to establish. He comments that the intangible costs of technology in this sense may outweigh the benefits of using technology in the classroom.
In a real life situation, Gow’s ideas would mean limiting the amount of access students have to technology in the classroom in order for a school to control what its students can and cannot see online. This would preserve the “bubble” idea that many schools try to focus on. A teacher under these circumstances would also have to be incredibly vigilant in what his/her students had access to when they did come in contact with computers. As many educators have already discovered, there are ways to get around firewalls to access things that some may deem inappropriate for school-aged children.
- Kristy McPherson
Paul Gow expresses the idea that technology is negatively influencing how many tasks students are trying to complete in a single day. It is true that the multi-tasking can be an issue because of the efficiency of technology today but educators need to recognize and face this consequence in education. This type of thinking is going to happen even if technology is not used in schools. Teachers need to take this knowledge and apply the lesson to their classrooms. Students should be made aware of how multi-tasking through their homework could potentially earn them a lower grade. With our high pace society, it is the teacher’s job to help students become efficient in their tasks while not losing the quality of the work. It is a skill that is not only hard to master but one that has been an issue long before technology became a dominant player in education. Though technology has made it more apparent, I refuse to believe that multi-tasking is a “new” development in students.
-Katie Reilly
As a teacher, I have found technology to be very useful and beneficial to keep my classroom and my student’s data organized. I can quickly put together a spreadsheet of test scores to analyze or I can send an e-mail home to parents in seconds. However, not all teachers have caught on to the technology bandwagon and cannot use technology in such a beneficial way. If I were a principal and hiring prospective teachers, I would require that they could use such technological tools to assist them with their teaching and data records. In today’s educational world, teachers are being held accountable for their student’s learning; therefore, they should be able to document their students learning using a computer program.
Working with a teacher that is not technologically savvy has been a frustrating experience. She does not know how to save a document to her computer but has no problem shopping online during class. I find this experience to be parallel to student technology use. Students can use technology for pleasure but have a hard time using it to focus on educational content.
-Kelsey Curlett
My CT keeps his iphone on him at all times with the ringer on. When parents send him an e-mail (he usually gets about 5 a day) he has about 15 to 20 minutes to respond before they send another or call. I think that everyone is becoming so expectant of instant communication and instant gratification that they are impatient to wait for anything. While I look forward to communicating to parents and carefully placing technology within the classroom, I think it is important for the entire school to have reasonable expectations of teachers, students, and parents. Gow is likely correct that technology is having unforeseen adverse effects on student learning and accomplishment. It is important for teachers to know their students and to know what their students are doing when they are on a computer. My CT recently received a Kindle Fire for his classroom, students rotate which days they get to use the new piece of technology. It has been preloaded with games and various educational applications. Students really haven’t been given specifics on what it is for, so many think it is acceptable to play games through the lessons. Your turn to use the Kindle Day has become your day to not focus and play games, I am curious to see how this goes.
-Aaron Noordhoek
48
Premise 1
It’s scary to think that a student can receive a bad grade and the teacher can be receiving a phone call from the parent within 5 minutes. I think that fact breaks down the community that schools set up in which there is a transaction between teacher and student outside of the parents (which seems contradictory since our emphasis is on getting the parent involved). But this method is not healthy for any involved. I will strongly urge students to keep that relationship secure and allow for the parents to stay within their realm.
Premise 2
The first thing that popped into my head while reading this was Bartleby, the Scrivener by Herman Melville in which the characters are basically just real life copiers. By removing these tasks, it is true that we can get more accomplished. However, as a teacher I want to keep students grounded. For example, one essay that they turn in is not done via computer. They must actually edit and spell check themselves. Another possibility is to designate library time for actual encyclopedia research days instead of just Google. This keeps students appreciative and also shows other ways to accomplish goals.
Premise 3
What I take out of this is that teacher needs to keep up with the current technology. As everything seems outdated within a few years, what was good for one school year may be ancient news in three. We need to keep updating out curriculum and learning to master these new technologies. (In other news, that Japanese School-girl Watch video is WEIRD!)
-Derek Boillat
Listen to the Natives
Implications for Practice: Ashley Gwinn
Beat the game, pass the course.
Finally! Marc Prensky advocates for teachers that, “laugh at their own digital immigrant accents, pay attention to how their students learn, and value and honor what their students know” (307). Teachers should allow students to display and use their technological expertise in the classroom as a talent and to connect school to life. Prensky advocates for the use of technology to help to intrinsically motivate students to explore their content and fervently pursue their own learning. Prensky believes that students should be included in the decision making of the classroom and the school. Students have a vast store of knowledge that needs to be honored and valued instead of chastised. Instruction and classroom organization needs to be flexible to the meandering paths students diverge upon. Prensky brings up a pertinent point when he says that students should be allowed the choice to “vote with their attention” when educators fail to deliver compelling content. Students are customers whose voices need to be heard. Prensky advocates for a focus to be placed on the future curriculum.
As a teacher my classroom would more model one that would make Prensky proud. I am a huge advocate for the use and manipulation of technology in the classroom. In my future classroom I will work to engage students with the inclusion of these technologies while recognizing that I do not have to master each one. Also, I want my students to have a voice in curriculum direction, assessments, classroom management, and class structure. They are the people who will be the main participants in these components and I will honor and value their inputs. Successful bosses consult their employees by finding out their needs and working with them toward a common goal. I want to be a successful teacher of successful students and including the students in decision making processes is vital to that success.
I found myself cringing while reading Prensky’s article; it was hard to imagine video games being a sole source of learning. The article suggests today’s generation, digital natives, should be taught only though technology. He also believes that teachers should be selected for their “empathy and guidance abilities rather than exclusively for their subject-matter content” (307). I completely disagree with this statement; referring back to Darling-Hammond’s article, in order for teachers to be quality educators they need to be knowledgeable about their subject. An informed teacher will be better suited to come up with various ways to explain an idea or concept because they have vast knowledge about that subject.
Although I think technological devices are capable of being able to facilitate learning, they are not able to do the same things a teacher can do. If a teacher can be replaced by a computer, than they aren’t doing their job. Teachers can critically think and change teaching strategies for each student; they have the ability to recognize confusion and adapt their presentation of the material. Teachers have the ability to connect information to other ideas and add their own personal experiences. They can use the information they have gathered through their personal relationships with students and bring it in to their lectures.
--K.McCollum
Prensky’s article advocates for the use of technology in the classroom to appeal to the digital natives that now act as students. He promotes teachers using more than just their content knowledge to work with students, and asks them to focus also on empathy and guidance strategies (i.e., the two other qualities it takes to be a good teacher who can effectively connect with his/her students) to maximize their effectiveness with students. Prensky’s model integrates modern technology – which the students already use to learn, whether they realize it or not – to more efficiently teach today’s students.
Prensky’s model would be very easy to integrate into a classroom. It essentially utilizes materials that the students are already familiar with to help them learn. My classroom would utilize both modern technology and traditional teaching methods to appeal to all types of learners. I would be empathetic to my students to help create a more comfortable, safe atmosphere for learning and would work to guide my students through their educational journey rather than just presenting information.
- Kristy McPherson
Marc Prensky has the right idea about technology and students. With its fast evolving rate, teachers will never grow up with the same technology their students are using on a daily basis outside of their classroom. Because of this gap between the “native” and the “immigrant” it is important for teachers to listen to their students. Teachers know they need to constantly be updating their education to stay relevant in their field, taking a technology class every few years should be another requirement on that list. Some teachers embrace new technology at home but do not feel comfortable with using it in the classroom because the students will be the experts. No amount of studying will make the “accent” of the “digital immigrant” disappear and this trait scares teachers in thinking they cannot have control in their classroom with technology. As teachers we should be celebrating our students’ knowledge on the subject not giving the message that it is unvalued knowledge by expelling it from the classroom. If we, as teachers, show our students our weakness in technology, our students will be more willing to take a risk in our classrooms with the information they have a weakness. It is one of those life lessons that sometimes lost in education, the value of making mistakes.
-Katie Reilly
It was hard to read this article by Marc Prensky without wearing the doubting lens. First of all, Prensky says, “we will never master [technology] with the same level of skill” (308). But I am curious when he says ‘we’ who is he referring to? Reading this article as a 22-year old, soon-to-be educator, I have grown up (like my students) with technology at my fingertips. I feel that I have similar technological skills as my students, if not more so, especially because many of my students don’t have access to technology at their homes. I also do not believe that cell phones should be used as a learning tool. If I were a principal, I would have a no cell phone policy. Even teachers at professional development meetings do not know when it is inappropriate to use cell phones. I have yet to catch a student using his or her phone for educational purposes. Again, like using computers, if students were to use their phone as an educational tool, they would need to be taught how to do so. Students use their cell phones to chat with friends when they’re bored in class, not to download class related material.
Prensky also says in his article that students should be able to choose their own learning partners rather than having teachers assign them. Teachers have reasons for assigning students to groups and while I believe giving students choices is very beneficial to the learning process, I do not believe that student picked groups are always conducive to learning. There will always be students that will not be able to focus if they work with the wrong people and young students are not yet mature enough to decide if they have picked a partner that will be valuable.
I do not disagree that we should cater to our 21st century technological students but I also do not believe that technology should run the classroom. Students need to be able to use technology but at the same time, they need to learn how to interact with people first.
-Kelsey Curlett
I remember helping my 5th grade teacher set up his first e-mail account. I remember feeling that my teacher respected me enough to ask me for help and it was a lot of fun teaching something new to a teacher. I think that as teachers we are afraid to ask for help from our students out of embarrassment, fear, or even arrogance. This coming generation of students are natives in the digital world, their experiences and knowledge will be far beyond our own when it comes to technology. It is important to get their input and feedback. Let us find ways to help them develop their skills and at the same time learn something new.
-Aaron Noordhoek
49
I think it was Aaron and I who were discussing (correct me if I’m wrong) the fact that we are not the technology generation. The new students are the ones who do not know school or life without technology, cell phones, and graphing calculators. But what a great article. This encourages students to get their voices heard. I think that students will have a better relationship with the teacher if the educator is openly asking what works, what doesn’t, and what they’d like to see in the future. Students would then become part of the learning and teaching process. And coming from my placement, I have no problem asking my students for help. Sure sometimes they giggle, but when they know that I am just trying to learn some new Spanish words so that I can better assist them they get very serious and listen carefully to make sure that I say it correctly back to them. The same can apply for technology. Admit when you don’t, ask for student’s opinions, ask for their help. We’ll be better teachers for it.
-Derek Boillat